Carr v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 30 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... existence [of the presumption] and its legal effect upon the burden of proof should be stated by the trial court... .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wells v. State · Stewart v. State

2. “The Court instructs the Jury for the Defendant, Arthur Lee Wells, that this Defendant is presumed to be completely innocent of the crime charged in the indictment. [This presumption of innocence is not mere legal form but is a substantial legal right, established by the law of the land and guaranteed to this Defendant and it demands that each and every juror on this panel shall at the outset of this trial consider the Defendant to be wholly innocent of the crime charged against him and totally innocent of every evil intent and guilty mind necessary to constitute this crime. This presumption stands for the Defendant, and demands a verdict of not guilty. This presumption is no mere fiction but is for the Defendant and is a shield against an unjust conviction throughout every step of the trial ] and you must find the Defendant not guilty unless this presumption has been overcome by competent creditable evidence establishing the Defendant's guilt beyond every reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. (Emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wells v. State

3. “This burden never shifts to the defendant, yet there is no such sanctity in this assumption of innocence which renders it immune to actual proof of guilt, or prolongs its life beyond that moment when the reason and judgment of the jury accept the guilt of the defendant as proven. Redmond v. Marshall, 162 Miss. 359 , 137 So. 733 . Indeed, it should yield as to each respective juror as soon as and as long as such juror is by the evidence convinced beyond reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt. There seems to be no reason why this assumption, although it may be conceded that it "enters the trial with the defendant," should "go throughout" the trial despite its early or complete liquidation by overwhelming proof. ( 192 Miss. at 156 , 4 So.2d at 888 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dubose v. State